famed through the whole world for sanctity learning and Prowess wheresore dost thou not consider what Religion made thee so glorious and renowned S. Austin the monk and his forty blessed companions were the first that brought the light of the Gospel from Rome to the Angles or english men from whom thou hast thy denomination this Austin and his fellow-Missioners were all Dianaists or Masse-Priests and received holy orders This much thy own Protestant Chronicles can tell thee To this Austin Bakeâ—… sayes king Eâ—…helbert gave his chief city of â—…anterbury and his own Royal Palace there made sincâ—… the Cathedral of that See withdrawing himself to Reculver in the I le of Thanet where he erected a Palace for himself and his successors He gave him also an old Temple standing without the Eastwall of the citty which he honoured with the name of S. Paâ—…cras And then added a Monastery to it and dedicated it to S. Peter and Paul appointing it to be the place of the Kentish kings sepulâ—…hres But in regard of S. Austin the procurer both Panâ—…ras Petâ—…r and Paul were soon forgotten and it was and is to this day called S. Austins which Abbey S. Austin enriched with divers Reliques which he brought with him from Rome which was a part of Christs seameless coat and of Aarons Rodd thus farr Baker Where you may plainly see out of one of your own Protestant Authors how Christian Religion was first brought into England and planted here by Mass-Priests Here you may see how those that brought it in did dedicate Churches unto them with this intention that the Saints should patronize and protect all those that should frequent their Churches with prayers Here you may also see how in those dayes sacred Reliques were held in esteem and veneration by the Propagators of Christian Religion Finally any body may clearly see by the very notions or names of the festiâ—…al tymes viz. of Christ-Masse Candle-Mass Lamb-Mass Miâ—…hael-Mass Martle-Mass that the Masse was used and held in great veneration by our devout Ancestors ever since England was converted to the Christian saith For it is certain these denominations of the holy times came first from Christians and not from Pagans It is also sure that sanctity and Christian learning could never have been attributed to our heathenish Ancestors Therefore if they were attributed to our primitive Christian forefathers why do we swerve from their pious wayes and Religion which is well known and granted by all Historiographers both Catholicks and Protestants to have been the self same which was and is now in communion with the Church of Rome and consequently that of the Masse Or with what Religion and conscience can the Reformists of our time censure all the Primitive Christians of England since Austin the Monks time to be guilty of the horrid crimes of superstition Phanaticisme and Idolatrie and yet by branding us with those crimes they do it for we hold but the same doctrine of the Masse which they practised taught us and delivered unto us so that by attaching us with those horrid crimes they involve them with us in them also But who could not rather think that any man of reason and understanding any man that hath any spark of belief of the love or feare of God in him or that hath any sense or feeling of the hour of his death of the immortallity of his soul of eternity aâ—…d of the terrible judgment of God Who I say would not think but he ought rather to ponder well and consider with himself how dangerous a thing it is and of what weight and concernment to his soul and eternal salvation not to shake of all antiquity and the old lyturgy which hath been used and practised by all the orthodox Christians of all ages since Christs time untill now and which is now also in use amongst the most universal Professors of Christianity a lyturgy so well grounded upon many clear and express texts of Scripture backt and seconded by the unanimous interpretations and definitions of all the General Councils and holy fathers of Gods Church in a word a liturgy so well cohering and agreeing with the infinit goodness charity and mercy of God to us whereby he demonstrated his love to us in the highest degree imaginable that could be in this life This mistical liturgy to reject abandon câ—…shiere and contemn upon the bare words of some self interessed calumnious opiniators who in comparison with the Roman Catholicks of all ages with the General Couneils and with the whole torrent of holy fathers are for fanctity of life for learning and for veneration of antiquity but like a handfull oâ—… wilde rude illiterate cow heards to compare with an innumerable multitude of grave Councellors or Judges What man I trow that has any belief or care of his soul if he were not starkmadd would clâ—…ave to such kinde of fellows and swerve from all the grand heroes of Gods Church what thing else is this but openly and manifestly to turn ones back to Christ and to contradict his express commandement where he bids us hear his Church or he will count us but for heathens and publicans Did not the Apostle forsooth prophecy unto Titus 2. Tit. 4. thus for there shall be a time when they will not hear sound doctrine but according to their own desires they will heap to themselves masters having itching ears and from the truth certes they will avert their hearing c. These words can in no wise be alluded to the Roman Catholick nor to their doctrin of the Mass which is of as old a standing as Popery is for our adversaries say that the Mass and Popery are convertible terms But all Ecclesiastical histories do attest that there have been Popes or Bishops of Rome ever since the Apostles time therefore if Popery and the Mass be convertible terms the Mass has been immediately from the Apostles time and consequently it cannot be that unsound doctrine the Apostle prophecied or spoke of to Titus Neither do we finde in the Acts of the Apostles or elsewhere that the Apostles ever opposed the Mass or Popery either which if it were a Phanatick superstitious or Idolatrous doctrine and liturgy as the good translator stiles it to be doubâ—…less they would have done tooth and nail and would never have suffered it to have â—…rept into Christs Church and so venemously to have infected her S. Pauls faith and the Romans was the same when he wrote these words unto them for I desire to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace to confirm you that is to say to be comforted together in you by that which is common to us both your faith and mine Rom. 1. did the Romans differ then in Religion and Lyturgy from their first Bishop or Pope no certainly therefore it is much to be seared nay in all reason and probability if it be not a theological demonstration that the opposers of the Mass be those peâ—…ple the
Apostle spoke of for it is a thing not only improbable but incredible also that S. Peter or if not he as our adversaries will have it or any else of the Apostles or all of them together if they had a hand in it should institute a Bishop of Rome which all the world for ever after called the Pope for his distinction from all other Bishops who introduced this Liturgy which is convertible with his name if the Lyturgy were at all dissonâ—…te from that of the Apostles themselves It is also both improbable and incredible but that S. Iohn who was both an Apostle and Evangelist and a most eminent divine withall and who outlived S. Peter and all the rest of the Apostles It is I say a strange thing that he should not take this first Roman Bishop or Pope in hand confute quash and trample down himself and his Lyturgy if it was not the selfsame with his own and the rest of the Apostles But we see not a word or syllable in S. Iohn or in any of the Apostles or Evangelâ—…s who were contemporaneans of of this first Bishop or Pope of Rome with whom the Mass is convertible against the Lyturgy of the Mass. From whence we cannot but conclude that the Mass is the selfsame Lyturgy that was practised and used by the Apostles themselves Therefore let all the opposers of the Masse take good â—…d they are not the people the Apostle Prophecied of to Titus his disciple and consequently let them take good heed that by oppugning the incruent sacrifice of the Masse they turn not their backs to God by rejecting and vilisiing the universal Lyturgy of his Church celebrated and practised by his Apostle Let them I say take good heed they hearken not too much to the unsound doctrines of their new masters their Ministers whose eares do itch after new opinions certes they will and do dayly avert their hearing from God and the truth And yet few of them agree in all points of their new opinions which is an evident signe their doctrine is false Not to apprehend the dreadful hour of death and the terrible and strict Judgment of God that follows it and not to fear the great power of the severe Judge who is able to cast both body and soul headlong into everlasting helfire to band against him and to contemn his Lyturgy his Sacraments and his Church after he told us that unless we hear her he will count us but as heathens and Publicans is thâ—… greatest sâ—…upidity and madness imaginable and yet the opposers and enemies of our ' Diana for swerving from Antiquity from all the General Councils and holy â—…thers whose authorities are so clear and manifest for her cannot but be at least highly suspected to be in the wrong They themselves for the most part say that we can be saved in our way and yet they perseâ—…te us more then they do the Turks Jewes and Pagans who are open enemies to Christ we hold they cannot be saved in their way because we would not have them be deluded for we believe none can be saved out of the Church and there is but only one Church of God why then do not they follow the surest way wherein both we and they agree a man may be saved and renounce that suspected way which we who are the far greater number and not inferiour to them for antiquity and learning do hold to be unsafe or can the way to heaven be too to sure Were it so secure an estate or great parcel of mony no-care and diligence would be wanting great heed would be taken that no slaw scruple or doubt should be â—…found in the Patent or Indenture wherefore is it not so also in this case or state of our souls safety which ought to be the dearest and of greatest conâ—…ernment to us of all things why I say do we not walk in the common and sure Catholick road approved of by both parties oh craftiness and guile of Sathan oh vanity of worldly Pompe oh sensuality of flesh and bloud But in plain and open truth our adversaries are clearly convicted concerning the sacrifice of the Mass and of the real presence of Christs body in it for how forsooth is it possible to convince any Christian maâ—… more then by plain and express texts of scripture backt and seconded by the clear authorities and testimonies of all General Councils by the unanimous consent of all the holy fathers and by sound and irrefragable reasons deduced from clear Philosophical Principles by all these Mediums is the sacrifice of the Masse and the real presence of Christs body in the host proved in this Appendix and for to convince a Christian no other medium or argument can be more forcible or convincing Therefore whosoever yeelds and acquiesces not to these mediums has nothing to plead for himself but meer obstinacy and consequently he wilfully turns his back to God and his Church and runs directly to his own infallible daâ—…nation he misprises our saviours pretious bloud and Passion and vilifies him and all his heavenly treasure and riches with the promises Christ made unto him of them In a word he hath no more belief then a meer Athiest As for Mr. de Rodons sophistical and false treatise I suppose and perhaps I am not deceived that his wily arguments did so work upon his zealous translator and totally convince him with his apparent Philosophical reasons that he took every one of them to be a palpable demonstration and consequently in his own judgment thinking his cause to be very clear out of â—… pure zeal to Religion and taking ours to be but meer Idolatâ—…y that made him fall so bitterly upon our bones But now when he reads this treatise after he hath seen my full answer to his author and how I have followed him through his whole tract from point to point and refuted him manifestly every where paying him also in his one Philosophical coine after I say the translatot hath perused this book and examined the case better with himself pondering well upon the arguments of both sides pro and con I hope he will become milde and have a better opinion and esteem for our Diana and Religion then he had before I hope also that his understanding being clarified and enlightned by my solutions whereby all de Rodons fallacious sophisms are detected and made minifest to all men of any learning or judgment he finding him to be but an Impoâ—…tor and deluder of weak ignorant souls will soon disown both him and his damnable tract finally I hope that no worldly interest as alass it doth thoufands of our adverse party will so blinde and intoxicate him as to make him lose the interest of his soul and refuse to be an incorporate mistical member of Christ which without the help of our Diana as I have sufficiently proved already is impossible for him or any man else to be As de Rodons weak arguments were not of force
spirit has no mouth as it hath no hands nor leggs If he takes it figuratively or metaphorically he will never be able to make it out in true philosophy that faith is the mouth of the soul which I prove thus a mouth must be an intrinsecal part of that thing whose mouth it is whether the word mouth be taken litterally or figuratively for a corporal mouth is an intrinsecal part of the body that eateth or speaketh and when God or an Angel doth speak methaporically they express themselves by their understandings and wills which are intrinsecal unto them But faith is not intrinsecal to a mans soul for otherwise every soul would have faith besides faith according to all divines is one of the Theological or supernatural vertues but no supernatural thing can be intrinsecal to a meer natural thing such as a soul is Therefore unless he means to make a Monster of mans soul faith which is extrinsecal to her can not be her mouth litterally nor figuratively In short the whole debate betwixt Mr. de Rodon and his party and the Romanists and their party consists in this that Mr. Rodon holdeth Christ is conveyed into our soules and feedeth them spiritually with the meer entities of bread and wine for signification which is the formal part of the Sacrament hath no exhibitive but only resultative power And the Romanists hold that our souls are fed spiritually with the real entity of Christs glorified body which being taken by the mouth of the body we say he is exhibited into our souls Now whether it stands more with reason and faith and whether it be more consonant with sound divinity and Philosophy that the entity of Christs real body can better feed the soul then the bare entityes of bread and wine can we leave the prudent and impartiall Reader to Judge But if our adversaries say that by eating Christs real body we damnify it or do it any irreverence That we deny because we eat his body as it is now glorified and a glorified body we say is uncapable of suffering any harm or wrong Neither can any irreverence be done to it but when it is taken unworthily that is to say while one is in mortal sin and then the receiver takes it to his own damnation but Christs glorified body is never the worse or in the least annoyed thereby for his body is now impatible and as it cannot die again so can it not suffer But now we are come to the Mounsieurs additional argument which is thus Rodon 6. When a man saith that a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he imployes in saying it is such he makes a false proposition for example when a man saith that a wall is white if it be not white during the whole time he imploys in saying it is white he makes a false proposition But according to the Romish Doctours when Iesus Christ said This is my body it was not his body during the whole time which he imployed in saying This is my body for they say it was his body afterward only therefore according to the Romish doctors Iesus Christ uttered a false proposition which being blasphemy to affirm we must lay down this for a foundation that that which Iesus Christ gave to his disciples when he said This is my body was his body not only after he had said it but also while he was saying it and before he said it And here we have this advantage of those of the Romish Church that we believe the truth of these words of Iesus Christ This is my body much better then they do because they believe it at one time only viz. after he had said it but we believe it at three several times viz. before he said it when he was saying it and after he said it But here some may object that we must not take the words of our Lord in too rigorous a sense and that in these words This is my body we must take the present-tense for the next future and then the sense will be this this will immediately be my body To which I answer that the Romish doctors will have us take these words This is my body in the rigour of the litteral sense and then the proposition is evidently false I know that the present-Tense may be taken for the next future as when Iesus Christ said I go to my father and to your father I go to my God to your God that is I shall go speedily But who can be so bold and ignorant as to affirm that this speech is without a figure seeing all Grammarians know that it is a figure called Enallage of time Therefore the Romish doctors must confess that by their own doctrine this proposition of Iesus Christ This is my body is either false or figurative and seing that it is not false it must be figurative and that the figure must be a Metonimy whereby the signe takes the name of the thing signifyed as hath already been proved and not an Enallage of time Answ. To this additional argument I say that to verify any proposition it is enough that the thing is such as the proposition sayes it to be after the proposition is uttered although it be not such while the proposition is in uttering if by a ptoposition Mr. dâ—… Rodon understands a perfect and significative proposition as he ought to do as this proposition this is my body is But if we should grant that while a meer man uttereth a proposition the thing meant by the proposition ought to be such before he spoke and during the time he is speaking it to have his proposition not to be false yet it follows not that while Jesus Christ who is both God and man doth utter a proposition the thing he speaks of should be such before and while he speaketh to make his proposition be true for as I said often before that as Christs word is an effective word so his proposition is an effective proposition because his word and proposition do make what they signify Therefore the Romish doctors say very well that the bread was made his body only after he pronounced the words and not before and yet we deny that Christ then uttered a false proposition Nay we hold de Rodons layed foundation to be blasphemous because it gives not an effective vertue to Christs words above the words of ordinary men 〈◊〉 we take not only the words but also 〈◊〉 Tense or time while they were spoken in as rigorous a sense as he does viz. in their real litteral meaning and the word is in the present Tense without a recourse either to a Metonimy or Enallage of time and yet we deny the proposition as uttered by Christ to be at all false because his was an effective proposition though other mens are not We deny also that our adversary hath any advantage of belief over us for beleving it was Christs body before while and after
is not probable that Iesus Christ said to them drink ye all of this cup of bloud and yet that it was not a cup of bloud but a cup of wine But when Iesus Christ said drink ye all of this he did not speak to them of a cup of bloud for the wine was not then converted into Christs bloud because according to our Adversaries it was not changed until Iesus Christ had made an end of uttering these following words for this is my bloud But he uttered these words drink ye all of this before he uttered those for this is my bloud because a man must utter a proposition before he can give the reason of it Answ. To this I answer that when Christ said drink ye all this he meant of his bloud for although by reason of the sacramental species he gave it the donomination of wine and although it was not his bloud immediatly after he said drink ye all this untill he added these other words for this is my bloud yet by so saying he made it his bloud and consequently he meant that they should drink of his bloud for I suppose and to think otherwise is not at all propable his disciples were not so rude illbred and irreverent to their Lord and Master as to snatch the cup out of his hand and drink it before he made an end of his speech to them the last part whereof viz. for this is my bloud made it his bloud and so is this arrow of Mr. de Rodons blunted in bread and wine and cannot pierce Transubstantiation Therefore he outâ—… with his third arrow Rodon 4. When a thing is converted into another we cannot see the effects and properties of the thing converted but only of that into which it is converted for example when the seed is changed into an animal we can see no more the effects and properties of the seed but of the animal only and when Iesus Christ turned water into wine the effects properties and accidents of the water were no more seen but of the wine only c. But in the Eucharist we cannot after the consecration perceive the effects properties accidents or parts of the body and bloud of Christ but we see there all the effects properties and accidents of bread and wine Therefore in the Eucharist the bread and wine are not converted into the body and bloud of Christ. And the truth is if that which appears to be bread and hath all the effects accidents and properties of bread be no bread but Christs body clothed with the accidents of bread then it may likewise be said that they that appear to be men and have all the effects properties and accidents of men are not men but horses clothed with the accidents of men Answ. I distinguish the major proposition thus When a thing is converted c. we cannot see the effects and properties c. with our corporal eyes I confess with the spiritual eye of our soul viz. with our understanding supported by divine faith I deny the major with its minor also in the same sense which being both shattered the consequence must needs vanish away The reason why the effects and properties of the Sacrament are not seen with our corporal eyes is because they are objects of faith which objects are beyond the sphere and capacity of our corporal eyes and other senses for the object of our corporal sight is coloratum quid some coloured thing and the objects of our other senses are meer corporeal things but objects of divine faith are never seen nor known by their colours nor by smelling touching or tasting from whence a man may see how sharp keen and witty this arrow of Mr. de Rodon's is against Transubstantiation which is a high object and mystery of divine faith As to both his examples of seed into an animal and water turned into wine without any of their effects seen either in the animal or in the wine I confess all that to be true and the reason is because those are but meer simple conversions and no sacraments But Transubstantiation is not only a conversion of one substance into another but it constitutes a Sacrament also and because it is a Sacrament it is necessary that although the entityes of bread and wine are destroyed their accidents should remain to be symbols or signs of our spiritual nourishment and are therefore called Analogically bread and wine though they are not really but meer accidents of bread and wine and the natural entityes of bread and wine wherewith they were formerly sustentated are really changed into the body and bloud of Christ. This then being so the truth is that although the Sacramental species appear to our corporal eyes to be but bread and wine and according to our senses seem to have but the effects accidents and propertyes of bread and wine yet to the eye of our soul viz. to the understanding supported by divine faith they are not really such but the true body and bloud of Christ because he himself said so and his word could make them so And it is also plain truth that if Mr. de Rodon had ever received the Sacrament worthily but alas he never did it would have wrought its spiritual effects and properties upon his poor soul as it doth upon all other devout ones and fils them with interior joy devotion and tranquility of mind and conscience But since he never did or believed in Christs words as his Church understands them but was alwaies led by the track of his senses only to the sight of this supernatural object certain I say it is and the very plain truth that he had no more faith in him then a horse hath that followeth the sent of oats But let us hear him farther Rodon 5. In every substantial conversion there must be a subject to pass from one substance to another for else it would be a creation which is the sole action that doth not presuppose a subject But in the Sacrament of the Eueharist after the consecration there is no subject because according to our adversaries there remains no subject for at they assert the accidents of bread and wine remain without any subject at all Therefore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is no substantial conversion Answ. To this argument I answer denying the major for this proposition is verified only in formal substantial conversions that is to say when one substantial form is changed or converted into another as when the form of seed is changed into the form of an animal and the form of water was changed into the form of wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee which are but simple substantial conversions in which the matter or subject passes from one form to another But Transubstantiation is a quite other sort of substantial conversion for not only the forms of bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of Christ but also their matters or subjects by vertue of the
do them any harm nor his arrows able to transfix them But now I hope he will come better provided with his new ones against Diana Behold he comes Rodon 2. The first argument is drawn from this viz. that in the Institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Iesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle S. Paul in which there is not the least footstep to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap 27. in these words the oblation which is made after Consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not of its essence which I prove because neither our Iod nor his Apostles did make this oblation at the first as we have demonstrated out of Gregory The Iesuit Salmeron in Tom. 13. of his Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul makes a Catalogue of unritten Traditions in which he puts the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy The worshiping of Images the Mass the manner of sacrificing and the Tradition that Iesus Christ did offer a sacrifice in the Bread and wine Card. Baronius in his Annalls on the year 53. freely confesseth that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an unwritten Trâ—…dition A strange thing that the Mass which is the foundation of the Romish Church for the doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Iesus Christ. And the truth is if Iesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist had offored unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should have been sacrificed again on the Cross because having already expiated our sins in the sacrifice of the Eucharist there was no need he should expiate them again on the Cross. To this I add that S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. mentions the offices which Iesus Christ left in his Church when he ascended into heaven in these words he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and teachers but makes no mention at all of the Sacrificers of Christs body and bloud nor in 1. Tim. nor in the Epictle to Titus when he describes the duty of Bishops Presbyters and deacons without making the least mention of this sacrificing of Christs body and bloud Answ. But I pray good Mr. de Rodon wherefore do you not produce some Passage out of the three Evangelists or S. Paul to prove your assertion for according to all Philosophers and I believe you esteem not your self amongst the meanest of them arguments that only consist of negatives do never conclude or prove any thing you say it appears by what is mentioned by the three Evangelists and S. Paul that Christ at the Institution of the Eucharist did not sacrifice or offer his body and bloud to his father you tell us not in which of the Evangelists or wherein S. Paul and we finde no such thing in them But we finde these express words in S. Luke 22. Chap. and taking bread he gave thanks and broke and gave to them saying this is my body which is given for you If these last words viz. which is given for you signifie not to be offered or sacrificed for you I pray tell us what else do they signifie for the Evangelist said before that the bread was given them and immediatly after in the same sentence he adds which was given for you Sure if these last words signifie not which was offered or sacrificed for you they must needs be nonsensical and a vain Battalogical repetition of the same words for the sense would be this and gave to them his body which is given for them Therefore these words which is given for them is as much as to say which is offered or sacrificed for them And yet the Mounsieur is not ashamed to say that there is not the least foot-step of a sacrifice to be seen in what was mentioned by any of the three Evangelists But perhaps S. Luke was not of the three he meant whether he was or no it is certain that in this very Passage he left us a true and plain track of Christs unbloudy sacrifice But I cannot conceive nor understand how Mr. de Rodon or his Translatour too is able to save him from the infamous brand of heresy for obstinately denying what so many general Councils holy fathers do unanimously assert an Heretick as he is distingushed from a Turk Jew or Pagan is thus described viz one that professes to believe in Christ and yet dissents in opinion from the rest of the orthodox obstinately But now let us see how the Mounsieur agrees with the whole Church as to this point first with the great and most eminent doctor S. Aug who in his 20th Book de civit Dei speaking of Christ who saith thus per hoc sacerdos est ipse offerens oblatio cujus rei Sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiae sacrificium cum ipsius corporis ipse caput ipsius capitis ipsa sit corpus tam ipsa per ipsum quam ipse per ipsam suetus offerri By this meaning the Eucharist he himself is both the Priest offering and the oblation the signe or Sacrament whereof he would have the dayly sacrifice of the Church to be for whereas he is the head of his Mystical body and she is the body of her Mystical head she was as well wont to be offered by him as he by her and again lib. 17. de civit c. 20. the table which the Priests of the new-Testament doth exhibit is of his body and bloud for that is the sacrifice which succeeded all those sacrifices that were offered in shadow of that to come for the which also we acknowledg that voice of the same Mediatour in the Psalm But a body thou hast fitted to me because instead of all these sacrifices and oblations his body is offered and is ministred to the partakers or receivers With S. Cyprian more ancient then the former and in learning inferiour to none who in his 2. Epistle to Pope Cornelius hath these words Sacerdotes qui quotidie Sacrificia dei celebramus hostias Deo victimas praeparemus We priests who dayly celebrate the sacrifices of God let us prepare hosts and victimes for him with S. Ambrose in cap. 10. hebreor Quid ergo nos c. What we then do not we offer every day we offer surely but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer allwaies the selfsame and not now one lamb to morrow another but alwaies the self-same thing therefore it is one Sacrifice otherwise by this reason because it is offered in many places there should be many Christs not so but it is one Christ in every place here whole and there
or sense should join in opinion with Mr. de Rodon against the Mass which has the Tradition and practise of the whole Catholick Church from the Apostles time unto ours of its side and the Mounsieur not a tittle out of Scripture Council or holy father that makes for him but his silly negative no mention no footstep And as the Mounsieur is impudent and obstinate in opposing the universal Church so is he also shamless in believing of her for he says that her doctours require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass which is an arrant lye for although it be true that our holy Mother the Church commands all her children if they have no lawful impediment viz. of sickness or some other very urgent affayrs of consequence to the contrary to be personally present and assist at the oblation of this divine sacrifice on sundays and holy-days of obligation for to hear Mass on workingdays is only of counsel not of precept or command yet she never taught them that by only hearing Mass they should be saved But she rather teaches them the contrary viz. that if they hear never so many Masses while they are in mortal sin they shall reap no benefit by them in order as to any the least jott of merit or reward unless they believe as the Church believes go to confession and do penance for their sinns and firmly resolve to keep Gods commandments and the commandments of his Church for the future and finally do some satisfactory works for the transgressions of their ill life past And far from truth is it also what de Rodon saith viz. that if Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist hath offered unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should be again sacrificed on the Cross farr I say is that from truth Because as all the sacrifices of the old Law were but types and derived all their force and vertue from Christs bloody sacrifice upon the Cross so also this incruent or unbloudy sacrifice hath its reference or relation to the said bloudy sacrifice and the difference between the old sacrifices and this our sacrifice of the new Law is this that they were but mediate types and meer shadows of the bloudy sacrifice But our sacrifice is not only an immediate type but also a true Idaea and dayly express real commemoration of it Nay as all the holy fathers do generally accord it is the very self same sacrifice as that of the Cross was though not offered in the same manner for that was bloudy and this is unbloudy and the reason is because Christ as I said before having a desire to be amongst the children of men and promising his Church to be with her alwaise unto the consummation of the world since he is to be in heaven in his humane and glorious shape until the time of the restitution of all things he found out in the infinite abyss of his wisdom this other admirable and ineffable way of being really and personally present with his Church militant in the most blessed Sacrament for to encourage seed strengthen her wirh the manifold graces that flow from his real presence in her into the souls of his elect servants To his farther addition out of S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. 1 Tim. being he inferrs all from negatives he can never conclude However since the Apostle makes mention unto Tymothy of Presbyters that is to say Priests and since betwixt Priest and sacrifice there is a correlation it follows that the Apostle at least virtually made mention of sacrificers Rodon 3. The second argument is drawn from the definition of a sacrifice as it is given us by our adversaries Card. Bellarmine in Book 1. of the Mass. chap. 2. defines it thus sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity and the divine Majesty the lawful Minister consecrates by a mistical ceremony destroys something that is sensible permanent from those last words viz. that the lawful Minister destroys something that is sensible I form 2. arguments which destroy the sacrifice of the Mass. The first is this In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses for our adversaries say it is a sensible thing but the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the mass under the accidents of the bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience therefore the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine are not the thing Sacrificed Answ. From these last words viz. that the lawful minister destroys something that is sensible drawn out of Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice Mr. de Rodon forms two arguments like two huge milstones that will crush and destroy the sacrifice of the Mass consequently poor Dianaâ—…s head too To his first crusher which begins thus In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses I grant its major and its minor which is this But the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the Mass under the accidents of bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience I distinguish thus but the body and bloud of Christ c. do not fall under our senses in their connatural and proper shape I confess the minor do not fall under our senses in a sacramental shape or in the form and shape of bread and wine which by experience we know falls under our senses I deny the minor and consequence also for we never say that Christ is in the Sacrament in his proper humane shape but only sacramentally that 's to say in the shape of bread and wine and yet we hold that he is really and personally there because he himself said so in most express terms These sacramental species then being obvious to our senses and Christ being really in them they being destroyed although Christs body according to its natural and human shape be not destroyed for he is not reduplicatively so in the Sacrament but only specificatively his sacramental presence is also destroyed in them and consequently we say that by destroying the sacramental species which are palpably obvious to our senses a true and proper sacrifice though an unbloudy one is offered to God the father in remembrance of Christs once-bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross Rodon 4. Against this answer Mr. de Rodon hath these two replies The first is that Christs body is not visible by the species of bread because as his adversaries say that hides it from us and hinders us from seeing it and he says moreover that although a substance may be said to be visible and cognizible by its accidents yet it is never so by the accidents of another substance and consequently he infers
it because God the father did constitute Christ high Priest for to sacrifice himself bloudily upon the Cross for our sins and unbloudily upon the Altar you inferr he hath no need of vicars or companions in his Priesthood what a fine consequence is this Christ sacrificed himself once bloudily therefore there is no need of any other Priest to sacrifice him unbloudily this antecedent and consequence hangs not together Nay nor supposing Christ sacrificed himself once unbloudily as we hold he did at the first institution of this Sacrament doth it follow that there is no need of any other Priest to sacrifice him unbloudily for he commanded his Apostles to do as he did himself when he said As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me But good Mounsieur tell me how could Christ be constituted by his Father high priest but in reference to some vicar or underpriest are not high and low relative terms you told us once that under and above do denotate different places and different you know is a relative because it imports inequality between two things or more therefore I beleeve you will not deny but that high is a relative word because it signifies as above does But all correlatives be simultanean that is together or at the same time Therefore Christ was constituted high-priest in respect to some Vicars or inferiour Priests and since he was constituted high-priest of the New Testament or Law it follows evidently that there must be Priests his vicars and substitutes of the same Law and if there be Priests of the New-Law then follows it as clearly that there is a sacrifice of the new Law to be offered by them for Priest and sacrifice are also correlatives But there is no more bloudy sacrifice of the new Law therefore the sacrifice which the Priests of the new law now offer is the unbloudy sacrifice of Christs body in the host really Mounsieur these consequences do hang better together then yours doth of its antecedent drawn from the Apostles words For besides its impertinency it openly contradicts the same Apostle who in his 1. Tim. 5. says the Priests that rule wellâ—… let them â—…e esteemed worthy of double honour and again the same place Against a priest receive not accusation Therefore in the Apostles time there were Priests and yet de Rodon concludes there is no need of vicars or companions of Christs Priesthood The Apostles themselves were all Priests and high-Priests too for they constituted Bishops and Priests as S. Paul did Timothy Titus and many others yet in comparison to Christs Priesthood they were but vicars and substitutes The holy fathers called themselves Priests and said that they offered every day a sacrifice whose examplar was the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross as I have shewed before where I cited their very words yet the Mounsieur confidently inferrs out of scripture that there is no need of vicars or companions of Christs Priesthood an excellent consequence and wittily deduced against S. Pauls express words who mentions Priests and against the whole torrent of holy fathers This is that smart divine of the Reformed Religion whose small treatise in his Translatours opinion is the best Antidote against Popery the holy scripture excepted that over he read and for ought he knows it is not inferiour to the best of this kinde that ever was yet extant these be his own words in the Preface of his Translation But our Diana and Popery will never be annoyed or destroyed with such silly and ungodly stuff as this Christ said Ego sum Pastor bonus I am the good Pastor Iohn 10. wherefore may not the Mounsieur inferr as well out of this text Therefore Christ hath no need of vicars or under Pastours to feed his flock or to be companions in his Pastorship and yet Christ bid Peter pasce oves meas pasce agnes meos feed my sheep feed my lambs In a word if the Mounsieurs consequence holds the Reformed Church needs no Preachers Teachers Ministers or Pastors for Christ himself the good and high Pastor will do it all for them and the people will but displease him for constituting Ministers and Pastors over them to be his companions or vicars in his high Pastorship to say the truth I think their flocks for the most part do not regard very much what they preach or teach for if they did so many sectaries would never sprout from them and without any other commission but their own private spirits invade the pulpit undertake the task of preaching upon themselves I mean both men and women also and many of them but ordinary tradesmen But if their flocks would take away their fat Benefices and stipends from these godly Pastors as their Ancestors did deal with us I doubt whether they would stick so close to their principles as we do to ours and endure so much for their Religion and consciences as we do After this short digression let us return again to Mr. de Rodon Rodon 17. In answer to these Argument's the Romish Doctors are wont to say that the Sacrifice of the masse is the same with that of the Crosse in respect of the essence of the Sacrifice the same thing being offered in both viz. by Iesus Christ. But it differs in respect of the manner of offering for on the Crosse Iesus Christ offered himself bloudily that is when he died he shed his bloud for mankinde but in the masse he offers himself unbloudily that is without shedding his bloud and without dying On the Crosse Iesus Christ was destroyed in respect of his natural being but in the masse he is destroyed in respect of his sacramental being They add that all the arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews respect only that bloudy oblation which was once offered on the Cross but besides this bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is dayly offered in the Mass. Lastly they say that the sacrifice of the Cross is primitive and original but that of the Mass representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross as the Council hath it in its 22. session Answ. All this doctrine is sound irre fragable and orthodox save only this clause viz. but besides bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is dayly offered in the Mass for the Mr. belyes the Romish Doctors who say not that it is another sacrifice but another maner of offering the self same sacrifice of the Cross viz. unbloudily and in that sense the whole doctrine is Catholick Rodon To these distinctions I reply that the sacrifice of the Masse doth not differ from that of the Cross in respect of the manner only which is but an accidental difference but it differs in respect of essence too Answ. That we deny he proves it thus Rodon First because the natural death of Iesus Christ is of the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the
funeral of the Mass and consequently the funeral of Romish heresies and Idolatries as the Author well observes For the truth is the Masse and the Romish Religion are almost convertible terms so that if the former be destroyed the latter must vanish to its first nothing and therefore our Author having destroyed the Masse hath destroyed the thing called Popery too As for the monstrous absurdities and blasphemies which flow from this one Romish doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass they would fill whole volumes but I shall contem my self to say that the Masse consists of more gross and abominable superstitions Phanaticismes and Idolatries then ever have been believed or practised by the most ignorant Pagans What the tenets of the Romanists are and what their practises have been in reference to Protestant Magistrates and people woful and sad experience hath sufficiently taught the world I only add that they are as pernicious to our bodies and estates as their heretical doctrines and Idolatrous services are to our souls And consequently to imtroduce Popery into this kingdom would be an act as unpolitick as Anti-Christian as hath been demonstrated in that incomparable piece entituled The established Religion in opposition to Popery But because I know not by what strange infatuation or inchantment or rather by what wonderful judgment of God this monstrous absurd and destructive shall I call it Religion prevails amongst us I thought good to English and print this small Treatise as the best Antidote against Popery the holy scripture excepted that ever I read and for ought I know it is not inferiour to the best of this kind that ever was yet extant to which opinion the harsh usage it hath had from our Adversaries as aforesaid doth certainly give no small testimony But I know that the holy scripture it self cannot profit except God be pleased to give his blessing much less can this book and therefore I earnestly beseech him that he would make it prosperous and successful for the good of souls and if any shall receive benefit by it I desire them to give him all the glory and then I shall think my self infinitely recompenced for my pains in translating it AN ANSWER to the PREFACE AND An Appendix to this book THe excellency of this famous Philosophy-Professors masterpiece whom his Translator doth so highly extol and commend gentle Reader when it is punctually compared with my answer will evidently shew you of what great validity depth and piety it consists for I faithfully cited him word by word I did not cut or clip one tittle of his whole Tract you have him whole and entire in my book nay you have him in the full formal vigour or career of his piercing philosophical shafts therefore I leave the arbitration of our cause to your own prudent and impartial judgment his country quality or profession is related to you by his translator to render him the more famous that is not the thing we are to look upon here but his doctrine The traslator complains of the great severity and hard usage his authors book received from his adversaries I answer him that it is not harder nor more severe then the usage our books have from his party and the gentleman himself if he had been taken with his book could not be more harshly used by his adversarys then our Romish doctors are when they are taken with or without their books by theirs so that as to this point the good translator has no more reason to complain then we have the severity on both sides being sufficiently repayed with a quid pro quo If what the ingeâ—…ious french gentleman told the translator viz. that his Authors small tract more nettled our party then any one piece that ever was extant in France since the reformation of religion there be true or whether he told an ingeâ—…ious lie I know not but supposing it was true I dare say it more netled them for its blasphemy then for any solidity piety or semblance of veracity contained in it as my answer doth clearly demonstrate As to what the translator dares affirm viz. that though many famous men of that kingdom have in the memorie of this Age written very smartly against the Romish heresies yet there is not one c. I dare affirm that the translator speaks very impertinently and improperly when he calls our Religion the Roman heresie because he speaks contrary to the usage of all nations who generally by the Roman Religion understand the Catholick Religion and Catholick is a word opposite to heresie but what care we for his scolding barking and playing the dog at us while we are sure he cannot bite hurt nor produce one tittle of sound doctrine against our sacred and orthodox Religion That none else of your party had such hard measure in their persons and writings as his authors had from those of ours shews rather the lenity and great patience of our people towards you then it doth evince we our selves being judges as you inconsequently infer that he hath made good what he undertook viz. that he hath destroyed that great Diana the Masse and hath also by way of prevention c. for all these puff-past words and darings of yours are evidently allayed and asswaged by my answer to his tract as any man of learning and judgment may easily perceive so that if your party shewed any more harshness to your authors writings then they used to do to any of the rest of your as you term them famous wtiters works it must eirher be because of its open blasphemous contents against the most blessed Sacrament or because of its wily sophistical formal method to inveagle poor ignorant illiterate souls and not for any great depth or profundity of learning they could see in it for God knows that amongst good philosophers and eminent schollars this great master-piece is not worth the reading or to be answered though some weak brains especially being destitute of the light of faith may perhaps applaude and admire it As for the title of his tract or book which you say may be very fitly termed the Funeral of the Masse it brings unto my memory what we reade in the history or book of Hester viz. how graceles and wicked Haman prepared and reared a high Gallows for innocent Mardochaeus to hang on but before he could bring his ungodly atchievement to pass he himself was set up and Mardochaeus came off with glorie and renown the self-same is our Diana and de Redons case he prepared a funeral and grave for her without any hopes of reviving or recovery but her cause and his being throughly scanned and examined in this treatise he himself is laid flat upon his back in his grave to the view of all judicious and impartial readers without any hopes of recovery for I took him not by the arm or leg I luggd him not by the ear nor pulled him by the nose I gave him not a cuff or a kick but